we talked about this in physics last year. from waht i understood driving slower makes a huge difference as far as pollution created.. i'll try and get the complete explanation ...
The speed change goes for Harris County and 8 surrounding counties (Matagorda, Ft. Bend, Brazoria, Galveston and others). Some, like Ft. Bend have taken it to court saying this should be a last resort. It won't make that much difference. It's been ruled against, but they're appealing. Cars do pollute less at lower speeds, but they'll all be on the road longer as well. Seems to even out some, IMO. Driving in Houston, like around 610, you don't get too much of a chance to drive much above 60. But on I-10 and the Beltway, it's hard to stay below 65. It takes me forever to get from my house to Lynus' now (at least 45 minutes, in no traffic). The bigger reason this is going through is not because of the cops and DPS or the EPA even. It's because federal funding does not pay for roads to be built unless you follow their rules. Their rule is 55 and since we're at 55 now, we get more money. I think it'll cause a lot more wrecks personally. Last night, I almost got hit several times by people trying to go 80 or 90 down the freeway when the speed limit is 55. The gap between 70 and 80 is a lot less than 55 and 80. The people who want to speed, it probably won't stop them. And the people who will obey it will get run off the road. I have a good friend who's a cop and he's not sure how the HPD will handle it. He personally thinks it's stupid as well. Some cops probably won't care but I already saw 4 people getting pulled over for speeding last night. And trucks ans SUV do get less gas mileage. An Explorer or Rodeo or Blazer is one thing. But the Excursion, come one. Most of the people I see in these things are women with 2 kids in car seats, talking on cell phones and drinking coffee. Then, they slow down to go over railroad tracks. *You're car was made to drive over mountains. Just go over the d*mn tracks!" (Sorry, just had to vent for a moment. Nothing personal meant).
I would like to hear an explantion where the max speed for fuel efficiency diverges from pollution. My PE sourcess off hand thought they should correspond pretty well (burning the fuel as well as possible). Further, most modern cars are fairly aerodynamic so at 60-70MPH they are close to their optimum in fuel efficiency, certainly far better than driving at 40 with stops (why the HW mileage is so much better than CITY mileage for cars). For the German folks or extreme US speeders How does gas mileage compare at say 100 KMPH (say 65MPH?) to 200 KMPG (say 130) using a high performance car with limited stops?
Last year, I got the opportunity to meet a woman who works for the city handling pollution issues. She is a scientist who won awards for the city and county doing environmental clean up. I asked her about the speed limit issue and she said that cars that drive 55mph or below produce X number or particulate emissions per minute (don't remember the figure). That number varies based on the engine and car make and model. For each MPH above 55, those emissions increase by 10 percent. For each MPH above 60, they increase 20 percent. Converseley, for each MPH below 55MPH, the emissions decrease by 2 percent and below 35 MPH by 5 percent. She said that cars were somewhat more fuel efficient today but that each year a car is on the road, it loses an average of 20 percent of its efficiency in terms of emissions. In addition, the average car on the road in Houston is 4 years old. She agreed that it wasn't the ideal solution but she said it herself, people are unwilling to do other things necessary to reduce pollution in Houston. Industry won't do enough. We are left with this. The sad thing is that there was a report done by a conservative industry group sponsored by the Greater Houston Partnership just over a year ago. They found that the pollution in Houston could be viewed as responsible for nearly $1 billion worth of lost revenues due to sick days and that the number of cases of child and adult asthma had grown 200 percent in the past 20 years in the Houston area. If we don't do something about it now, the air will be practically unbreateable in another 20 years.
Thank for the info Jeff. I think something should be done as well. But your expert and many of us don't agree with the way this is going. I don't think that it's the people who are unwilling to do something. I think it's the select group of industries. I don't know how to do it, and maybe it can't be done. But it sure would be nice. Do you happen to know what the output of vehicle emissions would be at 55MPH for a longer time versus 70MPH for shorter? Like at 70, it took me about 35-40 minutes to get to Lynus' house. At 55, it takes at least 50 minutes (if I stay at 55 ). Maybe you gave enough info to do the math, but I'm lazy! Also, it's a rare occassion that anyone gets to drive much about 55 in the city. During rush hour, the average speed seems closer to 35 than 55 or 70. During peak traffic hours, the speed change won't do a thing to help stop pollution.
I should mention one more thing about pollution in Houston: we are geographically cursed. The reason LA and Houston have particularly bad pollution issues is that they're both in areas where pollution tends not to blow off. A sort of ozone bubble is created. In other towns that also produce plenty of pollution -- like, say, Chicago -- their problem is offset by brisk winds. I'm afraid this is something I learned too long ago to explain the chemistry of it anymore.
JV, A lot of that is because we're both near water. I think there is something about the humidity that makes our problem worse. The pollution doesn't blow off of the city, just like fronts come through and sit in Houston longer than they do further north.
All I know is it's faster to drive on the frontage roads off of 290 than it is to actually drive on the freeway! It's still 50 on the frontage roads...
As far as I know, they're supposed to be going up everywhere, including toll roads. The only place I've seen them so far is 290 though. What's the point of freeways now?
Question about Industry: if they are not doing enough, why aren't they made to do enough? Seems like the regulations are either too lax, or not strongly enforced.
Princess: They actually wrote this out in a presentation given by the Greater Houston Partnership. They found that a one-hour drive at 55 was the equivalent of a 35 minute drive going 70 in terms of pollution. It is almost double at those speeds. Stop and go traffic is the worst because it is the least efficient operation of your car but, unless you want to stop driving altogether, traffic is going to continue to be an issue. One person made the comment that you could triple the number of freeways in the city and still have one of the worst congestion problems in America because of the way the city is spread out. Ultimately, people will have to change the way they drive, how much they drive and the methods of transportation they use. Rokkit: Industry pollution accounts for 60 percent of the ozone problems, however, they are responsible for 90 of the total emissions including benzyne (which they aren't supposed to be emitting anyway) and other substances. Only about 25 percent of all the refineries in the city area produce 99.9 percent of the emissions. Why? Because instead of being forced to clean up, GW Bush grandfathered them so they weren't required to follow EPA guidelines. Regulators try to get at them but it is difficult. These companies do a lot to hide their burn offs. Many of them wait until it is overcast and foggy and burn off tons of emissions because they are hidden in the low clouds. Sometimes, they do it when it is windy because it is difficult to get an air quality reading. The bottom line is that it is much cheaper for them to pollute the air than it is to clean up. If industry eliminated 40 percent of their emissions, our air would be markedly cleaner, but the government is unwilling to force them. When the EPA came up with this plan that the TNRCC approved, a large industry group immediately sued the TNRCC and EPA saying it was too expensive for them. The ONLY reason any of this has any teeth to it at all is that, if our ozone levels are not reduced by 55 percent by the year 2007, the EPA will yank all of Harris County's federal highway dollars. Imagine the city and county losing 10 billion dollars per year in highway funding. You think we have construction problems now! That has made the city and others highly motivated to push these regulations through, but no one really wants them. Motorists don't want to drive slower. The removed the ban on morning use of small machinery like lawnmowers, etc because the landscaping people complained. Industry has sued to keep polluting at their regular rate. The funny thing is that refineries would rather pay the fines than change their process because the fines cost less! Ultimately, if we want clean air, we all have to make sacrifices and no one seems to be willing to do it.
Those of you who drive in Austin . . .watch out. The Police are speed trapping vigourously, I got busted for doing 59 in a 55(thats not a typo), and got a ticket, because I'd gotten a written warning for doing 62 in a 55 two weeks ago.
Jeff: Thanks for the numbers on that! I really didn't know what the comparison was. We both agree on the traffic issue too. I hate the traffic in Houston but it's the way we get around. Changing transportation would mandate a change in lifestyle that I doubt people will want to deal with. As far as Bush and the industry, I really hate that it happens, but I also hate when people complain about it. Bush isn't doing anything with industries and corporations that politicians haven't been doing since the founding of this country. We all act as if he's the first person to act in his own interests, but he's not. That's how politicians have always worked (for the most part). They are about getting themselves elected. Some of them really believe though that their way is the best for the country. They're not morons or uncaring, self-serving dirty people. They are politicians and it's their job to get elected. I think we would all like it if elections were not about money and corruption (and I do, although it might not seem like it), but that is a very utopian ideal, IMO.
Princess: I realize that politicians sell out. I know that they all do things like this. My problem is less with GW and more with industry anyway. Understand that the refineries in question are refineries that are still operating under pre-Clean Air Act rules. They have been polluting the skies around Houston for 30 years (some of them even more) and they refuse to stop. Why? Because it is too expensive. Some of them aknowledge that what they are doing is harmful. One in particular has been getting by on tax cuts and increasing the pay of their board of directors for 10 years even while the refinery regularly emits too much benzyene, which is toxic and illegal, because of "burn offs". They just pay the fine and move on. Now, when Bush had the opportunity to protect the health of his constituents or allow the polluters to keep on polluting, he ignored us, the people that elected him. Over $1 billion is lost every year by business due to sick days that are the direct result of pollution - that came from a Greater Houston Partnership sponsored study and they aren't exactly industry un-friendly. In fact, the GHP is made up of Enron, Shell, Exxon among others. The incidents of child asthma have increased 10 fold in the past 20 years in the Houston area. Adult asthma has increased 4 times. The incidence of cancer from Port Arthur south through Houston to north of Corpus Christi is so high, they refer to this part of the country as Cancer Alley. You think it is a surprise that one of the world's best cancer center's is in Houston? They have access to one of the biggest cancer clusters in the world. All of that is the result of pollution, the vast majority of which is completely preventable if industry would curb its emissions. Frankly, I'm not sure how much longer I can live in Houston. If things don't change over the next 5 years, I'm not sure I'm willing to risk the health of myself and my wife just to live here. I know that politicians all have their contributors, but public health (just like public safety) should be an absolute priority - no question, no debate. Yes, government is supposed to protect us from rapists, murderers and terrorists. But, they are supposed to protect us from those who would kill us slowly as well.
Jeff: Glad we agree on something-industries are to blame as well. I know clean up is expensive, but most companies can afford it. Like you said, they are taking tax cuts to increase the salaries of their CEO's instead of trying to get their acts together. Bush could do something about it, you're right. But he's more than likely not going to and everyone pretty much knows that. As long as he (or any other politician who has any control over this) is getting money from these industries, nothing is going to change. It would be nice if the public could instead complain directly to the industries in an effective manner. The industry has just as much control over pollution levels as the government does. I'm relatively young, so I don't know much about any lobbying to the industries-if it can be done and if it could work. But once again, it's human nature. Politicians are greedy so they can get re-elected. Industries are greedy so they give money to politicians so they can keep polluting and not have to spend extra money that would go to their CEO's. And when they do get "extra money" they just give the hot shots a raise. It would be nice if the public could boycott the industries, but we saw how that would work in another thread!
Commonly accepted myth #10349(*): Human-produced emissions are primarily responsible for "global warming" http://www.john-daly.com/ (*) Refer to 'Commonly accepted myth #10332: We are entering a global warming stage... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1752000/1752999.stm "Ice Ages" and "Warmings" have been occurring since long before we started burning petrochemicals and releasing CFCs fromour hairspray and car ACs. Superstorms are regularly occurring phenomena on this planet (in geological terms). Mass extinctions are also known to happen, and it doesn't require a comet or a battery of refineries to do it. It is part of Gaia's natural balancing act - warm, cool, warm, cool... Who here assumes that the planetary ecosystem is static? That it ever has been? Our impact is minimal, despite the bad science that is put out by alarmists. If anything, we're due for another cooling. Frankly, I think you should all be more afraid of a cooling than a warming, as warmings have historically been good to mankind, while coolings tend to whittle the human population down to frightening levels. I don't expect anyone here to believe me, as the global warming "threat" has been drilled into our heads by a myriad of sources... Just read the links, please.
treeman: I'm not talking about Global Warming. I'm talking about breathing benzyene released as toxic emissions from local chemical refineries. Why even bother bringing up Global Warming in a thread where we aren't even discussing it?
Princess: It is tough to boycott an industry. To do that in Houston would require that you: - stop driving (no use of oil or gas) - stop buying anything that has plastic in it - stop eating any non-organic foods (pesticides) And you'd very likely have to stop eating food you didn't grow yourself and stop buying just about anything made with fabric, metal, wood or plastic since these refineries are just small parts of bigger multi-national conglomerates. Unfortunately, we are essentially powerless against most of these companies and we need the government to do its job policing them for us.
Jeff: I know it's tough, and I thought I said that in my earlier post. I doubt a politician will do anything soon about it. Sometimes, people need to take some other action, although I don't know what could really be done.
